People v. Brand, Docket No. 48965
| Decision Date | 20 May 1981 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 48965 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Danny Charles BRAND, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
James R. Neuhard, State Appellate Defender, James Krogsrud, Asst. State Appellate Defender, for defendant-appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Peter E. Deegan, Pros. Atty., Peter R. George, Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before KAUFMAN, P. J., and ALLEN and RILEY, JJ.
On August 20, 1979, defendant was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder, contrary to M.C.L. § 750.316; M.S.A. § 28.548. On August 27, 1979, the trial court sentenced defendant to life imprisonment with credit for time previously served in the St. Clair County Jail. Defendant appeals as of right, pursuant to GCR 1963, 806.1.
Defendant was charged with the murder of his former wife, Kathleen Brand. Prior to trial, a Walker 1 hearing was held to determine the admissibility of certain inculpatory postarrest statements made by defendant to Detective Donald Savalox of the Michigan State Police and Detective Ralph Cerpial of the Algonac Police Department. These statements were made after the officers told defendant that no attorney was available in response to his request for one. The trial judge ruled that any statements made by defendant after his request for counsel were inadmissible under People v. Parker, 84 Mich.App. 447, 452, 269 N.W.2d 635 (1978), lv. den. 406 Mich. 884 (1979), and People v. Lewis, 47 Mich.App. 450, 209 N.W.2d 450 (1973).
Prior to the prosecution's resting its case, at defense counsel's request, a separate record was made outside the presence of the jury to determine whether the testimony of two prosecution witnesses, St. Clair County Sheriff's Deputies Daniel Eastwood and Thomas J. Carr, would fall within the scope of evidence excluded by the trial court's Walker hearing ruling. After taking testimony from these witnesses, the trial court ruled that their testimony concerning defendant's postarrest statements would be inadmissible under the court's prior ruling.
Defendant never denied the shooting, his sole defense being insanity. In support of this claim, defendant presented both lay and expert witnesses.
After the defense rested, the prosecutor presented several rebuttal witnesses, including Deputies Daniel Eastwood and Thomas J. Carr. Eastwood and Carr testified concerning defendant's postarrest statements in which he admitted killing Kathleen Brand. It is undisputed that the trial court had previously excluded those statements from the prosecutor's case in chief. On appeal, defendant argues that the admission of these statements constituted improper rebuttal testimony and violated the trial court's previous order.
Preliminarily, we note that no objection was raised at trial to the admission of the deputies' testimony. Accordingly, we need not reach this issue absent a finding of manifest injustice. People v. Moss, 397 Mich. 69, 70, 243 N.W.2d 254 (1976), People v. Coles, 79 Mich.App. 255, 262, 261 N.W.2d 280 (1977). We find that no manifest injustice was occasioned by the admission of this testimony and hold that defendant has failed to preserve this issue for appeal. Nevertheless, we further note that the admission of this testimony was not erroneous.
The testimony of Officers Eastwood and Carr related to defendant's actions and statements following his arrest for the charged crime. This evidence was offered not for its substantive value but to rebut and impeach the testimony of defendant's witnesses (and Dr. Tanay's videotaped interview with defendant) which indicated that the defendant was a psychotic who believed that he was controlled by demons at the time of the crime. Through the deputies' testimony, the prosecutor specifically brought out the fact that defendant never mentioned demons after his arrest but stated that he had committed the crime because he was angry at his former wife for living with another man. Since the officers' testimony tended to refute or impeach evidence raised by defendant, it was proper rebuttal testimony. People v. Meadows, 80 Mich.App. 680, 686, 263 N.W.2d 903 (1977).
In People v. Murphy, 100 Mich.App. 413, 415, 299 N.W.2d 51 (1980), lv. gtd. 410 Mich. 920 (1981), this Court held that testimony of two police officers relating to defendant's sanity was prematurely allowed and should not have been admitted...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Tyson
...had been made involuntarily. Because no objection was made, we will not reverse absent manifest injustice. People v. Brand, 106 Mich.App. 574, 576, 308 N.W.2d 288 (1981). We find no manifest injustice in this case. Defendant's statement was not inconsistent with his claim of lack of crimina......